DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Excellent Authorities

Nick Raynsford: Authorities categorised as excellent 1 by the Audit Commission following comprehensive performance assessment are given a wide range of freedoms and flexibilities in recognition of their performance and capacity to improve.
	These freedoms and flexibilities include the removal of almost all plans, virtually no inspection and a dramatic reduction in ring-fenced grants. A programme is in train which has already provided some substantial freedoms. Others will become available as the Local Government Act 2003 and other deregulatory measures come into effect.
	The Government have decided that councils which lose their status as excellent where their performance has slipped should in principle retain the full range of freedoms and flexibilities for the following year, 2004–05. Exceptionally freedoms could be retained for a further year if that proves necessary in securing improvement in key areas of weakness.
	The Government will meet with formerly excellent authorities as soon as possible after recategorisation to determine how best to secure the necessary improvement in performance. The relevant Inspectorate/Department (as appropriate) will agree with the authority:
	the way in which the authority will tackle declining performance and what steps are needed to move back up to excellent;
	the time period within which improvement in performance is expected to take place; and
	how performance improvement will be supported and assessed.
	The principle of an inspection holiday will be retained for councils subject to an agreement, but there will need to be some inspection involvement in respect of any specific service in which performance has deteriorated. However, the scale and scope of assessment will be the subject of discussion with each authority and will be proportionate to the scale of the problem to be addressed. It could include a large degree of self-assessment.
	The duration of the agreement will be tailored to individual councils' circumstances but will be up to 12 months, although in exceptional cases it could be up to 24 months.
	1 Excellent authorities that are currently less then 3 star education performers will gain access to the full package of flexibilities, including the inspection "holiday", as they relate to education on achieving 3 star status.
	Councils which have been recategorised downwards from excellent will remain members of the Innovation Forum.
	An agreement will be made when:
	a rule comes into play eg
	Social services performance falls below 2 stars;
	Education performance falls below 2 stars;
	Financial standing; the auditor's judgement falls to 2 or below on the 4 point scale;
	Any other core service scores 1 on the 4 point scale.
	Overall service scores fall below the 2002 threshold for excellent based on the 2002 CPA methodology.
	In exceptional circumstances drops in service or corporate performance may be sufficiently serious as to warrant immediate removal of some or all freedoms and flexibilities. These circumstances include:
	Service failure in either social services which would lead to zero star or special measures status, or education, in the event that an LEA receives an OFSTED inspection report graded "unsatisfactory" or worse;
	Exposure of fundamental problems in the council that had not previously been evident;
	Breakdown of relations between members and officers such that the council ceases to be able to run itself effectively.
	The reaction would be different in different cases and would be proportionate to the scope and severity of the failure. In the event of service failure in education or social services any removal of freedoms and flexibilities would be limited to those related to the relevant service area.

Renewable Energy

Yvette Cooper: I am today announcing the start of the public consultation period for planning policy statement 22, which sets out this Government's planning policy for renewable energy projects.
	Increased development of renewable energy resources is vital to facilitating the delivery of the Government's commitments on both climate change and renewable energy. This new draft planning policy statement clearly sets out positive planning policies, which will facilitate renewable energy developments and contribute to all four elements of the Government's sustainable development strategy.
	This statement makes clear:
	that local planning authorities should set clear criteria in their plans on which renewable energy projects will be judged rather than identifying any specific locations suitable for certain types of development. We believe that the past emphasis on identifying specific areas of search within development plans has proved unsuccessful;
	that targets for renewable energy generation should be set within regional planning guidance, as indicated in the Energy White Paper. Such targets may be disaggregated sub-regionally if appropriate, but the aim should always be to exceed any targets set, rather than just meet them;
	the latest Government planning policy relating to renewable energy developments and the additional safeguards for national parks or other national and internationally designated areas.
	Due to the need for clearer and more concise statements of Government policy this PPS does not include technical advice or good practice guidance. The intention is to publish separately a companion guide containing the technical details of what was originally in the annexes of PPG22. We are also keen to include evidence of good practice from both developers and local planning authorities within this guide. Work on the guide will commence shortly and it will be published alongside the final version of PPS22.

TRANSPORT

School Buses

Alistair Darling: My Department is today publishing a research report by Steer Davies Cleave which evaluates the impacts of three yellow school bus pilots in Hebden Bridge (West Yorkshire) Runnymede (Surrey) and Wrexham (North Wales), plus a variety of other schemes around the country. I am arranging for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This research sets of the potential advantages of well designed dedicated bus schemes and the service features which are most highly valued by both primary and secondary school children.
	Although the pilots evaluated have been relatively small in scale, there is clear evidence that dedicated bus schemes have the potential to reduce car dependency on the journey to school, the key objective of the travelling to school action plan, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and I published jointly on 17 September.
	Several local authorities have already submitted, or are in the process of submitting, capital funding bids for dedicated school bus schemes through the local transport plan process. I welcome the initiative that is being taken by local authorities in considering how dedicated school buses can contribute to the overall mix of transport policies at local level. Where these schemes can meet our normal appraisal criteria, and subject to affordability constraints, my Department will give full and fair consideration of such bids, consistent with its approach to other bids for major capital funding.

DEFENCE

Gurkha Prisoners of War

Ivor Caplin: The Government have carried out a detailed review of the eligibility for the ex-gratia payment scheme established in 2000 for far east prisoners of war. This follows the ruling in the High Court by Mr. Justice McCombe in November 2002.
	I am now able to announce that, in accordance with the principles set out in the judgment of the Court, the scheme will be formally extended to include those Gurkha far east prisoners of war (FEPOW) who were held captive by the Japanese in the second world war and who, in 1951 when the peace treaty between the United Kingdom and Japan was signed, were citizens of Nepal. Claims can be made by the FEPOW or by their surviving spouse for the payment of £10,000.
	In order to deal with applications, a team from the Ministry of Defence will be established in Kathmandu and in Delhi by the end of February 2004. Application forms will be available for claims after this date but in the meantime an internet site http://www.army.mod.uk/fepow is available now for potential claimants to register their interest.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Oil and Gas Licensing

Stephen Timms: I am pleased to inform the House that I am today offering Burlington Resources (Irish Sea) Limited an oil and gas exploration and production licence on Seaward Blocks 113/21 and 113/22 in the East Irish Sea.
	The successful applicant will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offers.
	DTI undertook an environmental appropriate assessment prior to advertising these blocks to ensure compliance with European Union environmental legislation.

Overseas Exhibitions

Mike O'Brien: Details of UK Trade & Investment's £20 million programme of support for UK company participation in supported groups at overseas exhibitions, seminars and sector focused outward missions will be placed in the Library of the House. Sponsor organisations that bid for support to organise groups are being informed.
	These overseas exhibitions, seminars and sector focused outward missions continue to be central to trade development work world wide. UK Trade & Investment is conscious of sponsor organisations' need for flexibility in the way in which the funding is allocated. The operation of the programme during the 2004–05 financial year will continue to take account of this need for flexibility, within the overall budget provision, and the need for efficient administration.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Magistrates Courts Service

Christopher Leslie: The Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service for 2002–03 has been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the Magistrates Court Service Inspectorate's performance for that year. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline

Hilary Benn: On 4 November the Executive Board of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) agreed to provide a loan to help fund the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Pipeline. The IFC decision was taken by the IFC Executive Board on which 175 shareholders are represented by 24 Directors, including the UK. The IFC loan, which will be at commercial rates of interest, is for around 4.5 per cent. of the total cost of the BTC pipeline and accompanying Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) Phase 1 oil field development projects.
	The BTC pipeline will provide an export route for oil from Azerbaijan's Caspian oil fields. The Governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey—the countries through which the pipeline passes—strongly support the project and have negotiated agreements with BTC Corporation, the pipeline company. Azerbaijan, a low-income country, will benefit from significant revenues from the ACG oil field development. Georgia, also a low-income country, will benefit from transit revenues of up to 10 per cent. of current GDP/year. The pipeline will help to strengthen cooperation between the three countries and increase their links to global markets. It will provide local employment and demonstrate the potential for foreign investment. The construction of the pipeline, which will be buried underground, has already started.
	Responsible and transparent management of oil revenue will be vital if the BTC project is to achieve real development benefits for the people of the region. Working to achieve this will need to be a priority for the Governments of the region, with support, assistance and oversight from civil society, the private sector and the international community. The agreement of BTC to "publish what it pays" and in turn the agreement of Georgia and Azerbaijan to "publish what they receive" are welcome steps. The UK will continue to work to increase transparency and build local capacity in decision making on the use of revenues, including through the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).
	DFID is not providing any direct funding for the BTC project. DFID's role is as a shareholder of IFC and of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)—whose Executive Board will consider finance to BTC on 11 November. The institutions carried out rigorous social and environmental, integrity, legal and commercial due-diligence procedures. In accordance with our standard practice, we did not duplicate the due diligence undertaken by these institutions.
	Over the last year DFID officials have met with local and international NGOs, staff from IFC and the EBRD, BTC and representatives of the governments involved to build a better understanding of the benefits and risks associated with the pipeline. In view of the project's complexity, DFID commissioned consultants to do an assessment of the BTC Environmental Assessment. They confirmed compliance with the IFC and EBRD policies and procedures. I will place a copy of this report in the House of Commons Library.
	The Government recognise that large-scale pipeline projects such as the BTC pipeline present risks as well as potential benefits. Project risks include the weak governance environment and the potential social and environmental impacts of the pipeline. The multilateral institutions have thorough environmental and social safeguards procedures and genuine expertise of working in the region. We believe that their engagement provides the best prospect that the BTC pipeline will be constructed and operated to the highest standards. The UK Director at IFC therefore supported the project.
	We are now focusing on ensuring that the project is implemented properly. In particular we recognise the importance of very strong monitoring including NGO and community representatives. We therefore pressed IFC to:
	Ensure regular independent consultation on monitoring the implementation of the project—IFC will set up a mechanism that brings together IFI staff, the sponsors, Governments from the region, civil society (local and international) and representatives from the IFI Executive Boards in order to resolve issues arising during project implementation.
	Encourage enhanced transparency of revenue management—IFC will support the IMF and the World Bank in their efforts to promote the transparency of revenues in both Azerbaijan and Georgia and to encourage the use of these revenues to support Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper objectives.
	Demonstrate how IFC has learnt from the BTC/ACG projects—IFC will ensure that these lessons are properly reviewed and inform future policy development, including in discussions of the Extractive Industries Review (EIR), and report back to the Board. We made clear that we would strongly support the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for future infrastructure projects on this scale. IFC agreed to include in its review an assessment of the potential for SEA in future large scale and cross border projects. Other shareholders supported the UK points.
	The challenge now is to ensure that the people of the region benefit from the opportunities offered by the Caspian's natural resources. This will require concerted effort by the countries of the region, and also by civil society, the private sector and the international community. The UK Government will work to ensure that risks, which might impact on this project's contribution to sustainable development, are addressed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

EU Council Meetings

Denis MacShane: The forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union is as follows:
	
		
			 Date Location Event 
		
		
			 November   
			 4 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 6 Brussels EU—Russia Summitt 
			 6 Brussels Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council) 
			 6 Milan Meeting of Ministers for Urban Policies 
			 6–7 Catania European Conference on Employment 
			 14–15 Taormina, Sicily Ministerial Seminar on Mountain issues in the EU 
			 17–18 Brussels General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) 
			 17–18 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 18 Milan European Conference on Immigration & Labour Market 
			 21 Rome Informal Ministerial on Consumer Policy 
			 24–25 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 24–25 Brussels Education, Youth & Culture Council 
			 27–28 Venice Euromed Agriculture 
			 27–28 Padua Informal Ministerial Meeting on Housing 
			 27–28 Brussels Justice & Internal Affairs (Informal Council) 
			 28–29 Naples Foreign Ministers Conclave on IGC 
			 28 Brussels EU & Western Balkans JHA 
			   
			 December 
			 1–2 Rome Euromed Meeting 
			 1–2 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council 
			 1–3 Rome Informal Public Administration Ministerial 
			 2–3 Naples EuroMed Foreign Affairs 
			 4–5 Brussels Transport, Telecom & Energy Council 
			 5–7 Rome Closing Conference for the European Year of the Disabled 
			 8–9 Brussels General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) 
			 9 Brussels EU and Western Balkans Foreign Ministers meeting 
			 12–13 Brussels EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
			 15–17 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 16 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 22 Brussels Environment Council 
			
			 January   
			 8 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 16–17 Brussels Employment & Social Policy (Ministerial Informal) 
			 16–17 Galway Informal Employment and Social Policy 
			 19 Brussels Eurogroup 
			 20 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 22–23 Dublin Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 26–27 Brussels General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) 
			  
			 February  
			 10 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 19 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 23–24 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 23–24 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 25–26 Porlaoise Meeting of Regional Policy Ministers 
			 26 Brussels Education, Youth & Culture Council 
			
			 March  
			 2 Brussels Environment Council 
			 4–5 Brussels Employment, Social Policy, Health & Consumer Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			 8–9 Brussels Transport, Telecom & Energy Council 
			 9 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 11 Brussels Competitiveness Council 
			 22–23 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 22–23 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 25–26 Brussels EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
			 25–26 Dublin Informal on Humanitarian Aid 
			 31 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			
			 April   
			 2–4 Punchestown ECOFIN 
			 16–17 Tullamore GYMNICH 
			 18–19 Unconfirmed ASEM Foreign Ministers Meeting 
			 23–24 Brussels Economic & Financial Affairs (Informal) 
			 26–27 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 26–27 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 29–30 Brussels Justice & Home Affairs (Ministerial Informal) 
			
			 May   
			 6–7 Dublin EuroMed Foreign Ministers 
			 9–11 Killarney Informal Agriculture 
			 11 Brussels ECOFIN 
			 14–16 Waterford Informal Environment 
			 17–18 Brussels General Affairs & External Relations (GAERC) 
			 19–20 Offaly Informal Budget Committee 
			 23–25 Brussels Agriculture & Fisheries Council 
			 27–28 Brussels Education, Youth & Culture Council